Talk:Spade-toothed whale

Mesoplodon traversii

It seems like it would be better to have this page at Mesoplodon traversii. Personally, I strongly object to coined "common names" for very poorly known organisms. This whale is known from 3 specimens for crying out loud. Nobody is running around having a conversation about the "spade-toothed whale I saw yesterday". Anybody who is talking about this organism is going to be doing so in a scientific context, and using the scientific name. Google hits: 2,390 for "Mesoplodon traversii"; 1,540 for "spade-toothed whale". Additionally, "spade-toothed whale" results appear to be HEAVILY composed of Wikipedia mirrors.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.39.2 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 22 January 2009

Good point. --Swift (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a good point when made and an even worse one now. I think you should respect the common name given to it by the scientists who redescribed it. There's now sixteen recent articles and blog posts (and counting) calling it the "spade-toothed whale". It's a descriptive name and easy to remember, unlike the countless ziphiids named after obscure scientists. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Now it's 230 and counting. I think we can safely say it can be called spade-toothed whale now. Let's save another beaked whale from being named after a very obscure scientist! "Travers' beaked whale"? No thank you. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

We have no ability to "save another beaked whale from being named after an obscure scientist," when it already has been named after someone and when nomenclatural rules for naming organisms don't give a group of Wikipedia editors the opportunity to do so.

(Personal attack removed)

IP editor, it appears that whale articles on en.Wikipedia use common names rather than scientific names. Your general argument against common names as ridiculous for such a rare organism is understood, and the problems with common names in general is also understood, but the common names are used for whale article titles on en.Wikipedia. However, thanks for taking an interest; the whale editors (some exceptions, obviously) are generally a good group to work with; please consider contributing by editing some of the articles. Thanks for commenting. -Fjozk (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:CETA capitalisation discussion

Yeah, and why is it the 'strap-toothed whale'? I've given up on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.180.117 (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

new specimen

http://news.discovery.com/animals/worlds-rarest-whale-seen-for-the-first-time-121105.html Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was already added to the article before you had posted this. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Date when external appearance was first known

More than one editor has reverted the 2012 date to 2010 on good faith. As the two specimens were originally thought to be Gray's beaked whale, the 2010 date can not be used as they hadn't been identified as spade-toothed yet. As such, the 2012 date of the paper should be used to be safe. Please do not revert before explaining why it should be changed here. Thank you. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Image

I'm not a biologist, but does the image added to the article by Vanderghast72 (talk · contribs) (no edits other than uploading the image to Commons and placing it in the article) seem OK to you folks? It's been uploaded as "own work", but there's no metadata on the commons page; and if this beastie has been seen as rarely as the article states, where, exactly, is the image supposed to have been taken? Deor (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns, however, I believe that en.Wiki does allow original research in images. I am not sure how to proceed. Maybe we can ask the user what the find is, since most sitings have specific times, dates, places attached, then compare the image to images of those finds, or have WikiProject:Cetacean editors do so? -Fjozk (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I'm reading the article correctly, the two that washed up on Opape Beach are the only recorded complete specimens. The photo definitely doesn't look like the bloody adult female seen here. I suppose it could be her calf, but somehow I doubt it. Deor (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a photo of a Gray's beaked whale. See the cover of the current issue of Current Biology here. They used it for comparison, which was a really stupid idea in hindsight -- it created a lot of confusion, appearing in numerous articles as a "spade-toothed whale". You're welcome. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Consolidation of phantom taxa

I take it from this article that Bahamonde's beaked whale is now subsumed into the spade-toothed whale. Is this correct, and is any other taxon now consolidated with this one? J S Ayer (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Well, pretty much. There is Bob Pitman's "Mesoplodon sp. B", which he sighted a couple of times in the eastern tropical Pacific. The individuals seen had a very long rostrum with a white lower jaw and dark upper jaw with "a distinct pale patch behind the eye" that may be reminiscent of the one visible on the adult female specimen from Opape Beach. Pitman speculated at the time that it could be Mesopolodon bahamondi (= M. traversii). SaberToothedWhale (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)